Humans: the Sixth Mass Extinction?

[Tex]

Okay, so I was watching SciShow yesterday and saw a video that proposed an interesting idea: That humans are responsible for (and are in the process of causing) Earth's sixth mass extinction.

Now, I haven't done very much research into where they themselves got the idea from, but the evidence they propose are all things we've been hearing about forever; stuff like climate change, greenhouse effects, urbanization, yadda yadda yadda.

The video went on to explain that in this "Mass Extinction" that us humans are basically picking the winners of the whole shebang because of our forever-expanding urban zones. Cities and other human constructions are taking up habitats, migratory paths, and mating areas that were once used freely by animals in the wild, and forcing global animal behavioral patterns to change.

The way that the victors are being decided, SciShow explained, is how well they can adapt to human environments. Animals like crows, pigeons, raccoons, and other normal city-dwellers can survive off of the detritus left in cities as our waste, as well as roadkill, which was a source of food for scavengers that didn't exist before we came along.

That's the gyst of it, anyway. What do you think on the subject?

Here's the video:

Edited January 21, 2015 by Maximus97

[Dkmdlb]

Pretty much.

[Louella]

for land mammals, the information on this chart is apparently accurate: http://xkcd.com/1338/

that is, that humans+livestock are the vast majority of land mammals on Earth.

[shynung]

So the best trait for animals living in this age is to be useful to humans, then?

[GreeningGalaxy]

We're absolutely in the midst of a mass extinction right now. According to WWF, the current total extinction rate of species on Earth is something like 10,000 to 100,000 per year, which is several orders of magnitude higher than the "background extinction rate" (how many species would be going extinct if we weren't in the middle of a mass extinction).

Is this the result of human activities? Absolutely. Climate change, habitat loss due to deforestation etc, and pretty much just the fact that humans live everywhere is causing this. There's not really any way around that fact; denying it is a little like setting off multi-megaton nuclear weapon and then, when people ask why your formerly whole island now has a big chunk missing, insisting that the rock was weak and would have broken anyway. We've been doing too much to our planet for these effects not to be majorly influenced by our activities, and, all things considered, it's pretty much immaterial whether or not any part of what we're seeing is happening "naturally," because we're still responsible for most of it.

So the best trait for animals living in this age is to be useful to humans, then?

To an extent, perhaps. What you've got to remember, though, is that every single species on the planet fulfills a particular niche in the biosphere, which contributes to said biosphere's stability, which in turn means that it's absolutely useful to humans, since we depend on the integrity of the biosphere. Our biosphere is quite resilient and probably won't suffer any particularly devastating collapse just from a few (million) species going extinct, but it's going to be a little the worse for wear. Ecological stability is a very complex thing - delicate in some ways, tough as nails in others - and it hasn't exactly been a priority of our species lately.

Will we survive? Yes. But we've already had such an impact on the world (and have made so little effort to mitigate it) that this mass extinction will continue for quite a lot longer, and we're going to see a lot of negative effects on our biosphere no matter what we do.

[xcorps]

We're absolutely in the midst of a mass extinction right now. According to WWF, the current total extinction rate of species on Earth is something like 10,000 to 100,000 per year, which is several orders of magnitude higher than the "background extinction rate" (how many species would be going extinct if we weren't in the middle of a mass extinction).

Is this the result of human activities? Absolutely. Climate change, habitat loss due to deforestation etc, and pretty much just the fact that humans live everywhere is causing this. There's not really any way around that fact; denying it is a little like setting off multi-megaton nuclear weapon and then, when people ask why your formerly whole island now has a big chunk missing, insisting that the rock was weak and would have broken anyway. We've been doing too much to our planet for these effects not to be majorly influenced by our activities, and, all things considered, it's pretty much immaterial whether or not any part of what we're seeing is happening "naturally," because we're still responsible for most of it.

To an extent, perhaps. What you've got to remember, though, is that every single species on the planet fulfills a particular niche in the biosphere, which contributes to said biosphere's stability, which in turn means that it's absolutely useful to humans, since we depend on the integrity of the biosphere. Our biosphere is quite resilient and probably won't suffer any particularly devastating collapse just from a few (million) species going extinct, but it's going to be a little the worse for wear. Ecological stability is a very complex thing - delicate in some ways, tough as nails in others - and it hasn't exactly been a priority of our species lately.

Will we survive? Yes. But we've already had such an impact on the world (and have made so little effort to mitigate it) that this mass extinction will continue for quite a lot longer, and we're going to see a lot of negative effects on our biosphere no matter what we do.

That's a nice bit of enviro-propaganda.

That niche/balance/stability nonsense is just too rich. Every single living thing on this planet competes for resources, and every single thing changes the environment. The difference with humans is that our competition is humanity, not tigers or bees. There is no balance, there is no niche. Those are interpertations of what we observe. If what you say was even close to the truth, there would be no "background" extinction". There would be no evolution.

[Kryten]

That's a nice bit of enviro-propaganda.

It's basic ecology. You're acting like there's no such thing as an ecosystem.

[xcorps]

It's basic ecology. You're acting like there's no such thing as an ecosystem.

You should have read the whole post instead of just the first line.

[Kryten]

You should have read the whole post instead of just the first line.

I did. I regret having done so, but I did. You might want to add evolutionary biology to your reading list as well as ecology, and probably throw in a definition of the word 'competition' in the context of biology while you're at it.

[Dkmdlb]

So the best trait for animals living in this age is to be useful to humans, then?

You know what I find hilarious? The idea that if we want to preserve endangered species, we need to start using them as food. It's morbid, but in some sense it rings true.

[Kryten]

Doesn't work for animals that are difficult or just expensive to keep in captivity. Look at rhinos or tigers-the fact they're used as 'food' is a major part of the problem.

[Nitrous Oxide]

I'm pretty confused as to how we can look at history, see the Industrial Revolution, and still somehow think we aren't actively altering the climate of the planet...

This should be common sense, instead people think it's some kind of conspiracy. Guys, we're screwed. Time to jump ship.

tl;dr only so much capacity for breathable air and dumping coal fumes into that is fantastic m8

Edited January 20, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide

[Duxwing]

To say we are undergoing a mass extinction is to stretch the term beyond usefulness: the Great Dying was a mass extinction, the Yucutan Impact was a mass extinction, the Ice Ages were mass extinctions. The horrors we see today are not of that scale.

-Duxwing

[Moar Boosters]

Relying on the whims of another species is never going to be a good survival mechanism. Being a cow wouldn't work if all humans switch to vegetarianism, or if our intensive farming techniques cause a disease to spread and wipe them out.

It'd probably be better to go down the rat/cockroach route. Resilient animals too difficult for us to wipe out, who are able to exploit our activities.

[Sirrobert]

So the best trait for animals living in this age is to be useful to humans, then?

No. It's being able to ADEPT to everything Humans do to the world.

Pidgeons and rats are thriving, and they aren't exactly usefull to us. But they make excelent use of the things we build and leave behind

[shynung]

You know what I find hilarious? The idea that if we want to preserve endangered species, we need to start using them as food. It's morbid, but in some sense it rings true.

Not sure if that'll work for tigers. They don't reproduce quickly, for one.

Also, it doesn't have to be food. Dogs aren't usually eaten by humans, but they evolved along with us anyway.

No. It's being able to ADAPT to everything Humans do to the world.

Pidgeons and rats are thriving, and they aren't exactly usefull to us. But they make excelent use of the things we build and leave behind

Good point. Humans aren't the only ones to have taken advantage of another species (by farming them), but they are also being taken advantage by rats, mice, roaches, and others living alongside them.

[magnemoe]

We're absolutely in the midst of a mass extinction right now. According to WWF, the current total extinction rate of species on Earth is something like 10,000 to 100,000 per year, which is several orders of magnitude higher than the "background extinction rate" (how many species would be going extinct if we weren't in the middle of a mass extinction).

Is this the result of human activities? Absolutely. Climate change, habitat loss due to deforestation etc, and pretty much just the fact that humans live everywhere is causing this. There's not really any way around that fact; denying it is a little like setting off multi-megaton nuclear weapon and then, when people ask why your formerly whole island now has a big chunk missing, insisting that the rock was weak and would have broken anyway. We've been doing too much to our planet for these effects not to be majorly influenced by our activities, and, all things considered, it's pretty much immaterial whether or not any part of what we're seeing is happening "naturally," because we're still responsible for most of it.

To an extent, perhaps. What you've got to remember, though, is that every single species on the planet fulfills a particular niche in the biosphere, which contributes to said biosphere's stability, which in turn means that it's absolutely useful to humans, since we depend on the integrity of the biosphere. Our biosphere is quite resilient and probably won't suffer any particularly devastating collapse just from a few (million) species going extinct, but it's going to be a little the worse for wear. Ecological stability is a very complex thing - delicate in some ways, tough as nails in others - and it hasn't exactly been a priority of our species lately.

Will we survive? Yes. But we've already had such an impact on the world (and have made so little effort to mitigate it) that this mass extinction will continue for quite a lot longer, and we're going to see a lot of negative effects on our biosphere no matter what we do.

I have seen the 10.000 species each year but no named species, on the other hand lots of named species is on the protected list and they tend to stay there for a long time.

Habitat loss is an obvious effect however this is mostly in the 3rd world today, little habitat loss in the first world, yes cities grows but lots of low productive farmland goes back to wilderness.

[Sirrobert]

I have seen the 10.000 species each year but no named species, on the other hand lots of named species is on the protected list and they tend to stay there for a long time.

Habitat loss is an obvious effect however this is mostly in the 3rd world today, little habitat loss in the first world, yes cities grows but lots of low productive farmland goes back to wilderness.

There are hardly any protected species in the first world, because we already killed them. The only things left are species that have adopted

[shynung]

Or becoming too slippery. Nobody adopted roaches, but they go on living anyway.

[Sirrobert]

Roaches have already adopted. They thrive in our trash

[shynung]

I was thinking of the species whose existence we are supporting directly (like cattle), but I think you have a good point.

[magnemoe]

There are hardly any protected species in the first world, because we already killed them. The only things left are species that have adopted

Lots of protected species, pretty much any rare mammal and bird is on it.

More accurate any species who is not classified as a pest or legal to hunt is protected but this is more an legality.

As for extinct species, again, names species gone extinct in the first world the last 50 years?

Even if we include the worst time as in 1850 to today the list is not gigantic even if tragic for the involved species.

And yes, the old list only contains birds and mammals and other more impressive species, not beetles but gives some baselines.

[Sirrobert]

We've been here slightly longer than 50 years...

[J.Random]

It's not extinction, it's evolution. Everyone here knows the peppered moth story, right?

[Moar Boosters]

I have seen the 10.000 species each year but no named species, on the other hand lots of named species is on the protected list and they tend to stay there for a long time.

Habitat loss is an obvious effect however this is mostly in the 3rd world today, little habitat loss in the first world, yes cities grows but lots of low productive farmland goes back to wilderness.

Here's a list of 700 that have been individually confirmed. This isn't where the really high numbers come from but you can be safe to multiply that number many times; as all of these animals will have species specific parasites and bacteria which also go extinct with the host animal.

http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/lists/mostrecent.htm

The really high estimates come from bio-diversity studies in the rain-forests. Every time entomologists catalogue an area of rainforest they come across loads of unique species they've only ever found in that area. The really high estimates are derived from mathematical formulae which take into account the thousands of square miles of rain forest we chop down, rather than individual species being recorded.